Truly appreciate your concern & help triploidjunkie. Our issue is almost getting as much attention as the Decorating A Man Cave post, so it might serve our purpose best to stay on topic & try not to alienate any potential help with side issues. Eyes on the prize. If you or anybody else would like to post & start a new thread on Ethics (very interesting topic) or anything else not exactly related to the OP here, I would be glad to throw in my two cents.

And as far as ethics being common sense, I would argue that the Inquisitors considered themselves ethical men standing on common sense. Be careful. Somebody who doesn't fish at all might claim the ethical high ground claiming that piecing the lips of fish & fighting them to exhaustion for fun, is sadistic. Ethics are empirical, for the most part. And too often the refuge of the didactic.

Click to expand...

Waxing philisophical aside, I'm just glad we're all on the same side now

Why haven't we been talking about targeting those walleye on a fly rod, My guess is full sink on a 6-7wt with a nice big gummy minnow or bucktail streamer, probably throw on a 30 lb bite guard. I would think to troll with gear for a while and once you start getting bites throw some flies at em. I would love to eat some nuisance walleye.

This thread was called to my attention by a friend of mine and in response, I am the site sponsor you didn't want to name - Jack Mitchell of The Evening Hatch.The idea of raping reds is a sad notion. You know nothing about how we fish. In all fairness, your bash on us is a sad testament to your lack of knowledge and your willingness to throw caution to the wind.

That being said, as Steve has pointed out, any fishing in the winter is for fish that are pre-spawn; whether you are on the Yakima during Skwala Season, the Hoh during steelhead migration, or on the Upper Columbia. FYI - I have seen spawning fish on the Upper Columbia from January until June in the main stem.

Before we bash anymore re: the Upper Columbia, why don't we point our efforts to decreasing the limits on the Wild Rainbows of the Upper Columbia because as it stands right now.... An angler is able to catch and kill 2 Rainbow trout by stepping 1 foot over the boundaries that were set to protect the creek mouths. How crazy is this?

In addition, the closure of these creek mouths are lifted on the Saturday before Memorial dayl Over the years I have seen many prime wild redband rainbow genetic stock 'downstreamers' get killed by non-releasing anglers because it is 'legal' and currently the limit on these creeks is 5! Again, how crazy is this.

Kudos for Steve and his efforts. He is a gentleman, scholar and angler. As he has pointed out, we are continually trying to better the rules on behalf of the wild redbands. I am in constant contact with WDFW re: the Upper Columbia and in fact, donated quite a bit of time a few years back to help with a mini study re: the wild redbands. Regardless, more changes need to be made.

1) Ideally the river would become catch and release. Currently, the limit is 2. 2) The creeks and creek mouths are still subject to the pressure of catch and kill at a crucial time when the fish are down streaming and the limit is 5 in those creeks. This needs to change.

Just a few thoughts. Enjoy the holidays and quit the bashing, it gets you nowhere.

Click to expand...

Thanks for weighing in & providing some clarity, Jack. Best to you & Jennifer on the holidays as well.

Those of you UC trout fans who might be intimidated by the sheer bulk of the walleye lobby take note: Jack Mitchell, this site's sponser, is one of the founding members of the Upper Columbia Native Fish Alliance (UCNFA) circle of writers working on behalf of the UC native trout fishery. It was largely through UCNFA efforts that we were able to get the trout limit reduced from 5 to 2. (We tried for 1, to allow for retaining the occasional deeply hooked fish, but there's always the compromise.) Jack, on his own, through his extensive connections, was able to garner over 200 letters on behalf of the limit change. Our awareness raising campaign was largely responsible for WDFW finally, last year, recognizing Sheep Creek as a redband natal stream & setting up a survey there. Our efforts contributed to the fact that Proposition #15 is on the agenda for 2012-2013. (I really hate to see Jack mistreated, because it is unfair & unfounded, & he is probably the most powerful friend the UC fishery has.) I set up the Upper Columbia Flyfisher site as a rally point for our activities. There is only a handful of us, but we are able to exert pressure. A handful more like who we have & I am confident we can steamroll The Crazy. We welcome anybody who would like to join us in our occasional letter-bomb projects on behalf of UC natives.

Why haven't we been talking about targeting those walleye on a fly rod, My guess is full sink on a 6-7wt with a nice big gummy minnow or bucktail streamer, probably throw on a 30 lb bite guard. I would think to troll with gear for a while and once you start getting bites throw some flies at em. I would love to eat some nuisance walleye.

Click to expand...

O heck yes. Do it a lot. You can even skip the trolling part & just get to it.

I like option 4. Most the anglers are going to catch the little guys and perch fry em, the better walleye guys the bigger ones, with unavoidable incidental catches between both groups. The biggest problem I see is the hardcore walleye guys(and the river between here and Kettle Falls is chock full of them) letting the spawners go. They are as religious about it as most fly anglers are with native fish. I saw a pair of pros last year release seven walleye caught that day back into the the columbia, and every one of them was over ten pounds( I hate walleye, and even I was impressed). How many pounds of other fish do walleye of that size consume? I propose an option 5: like hatchery steel, a mandatory kill on all walleye caught in the Columbia system. You catch one, you kill it. Period. Impose a fine for releasing one, and put it in the realm of introducing an invasive species(which is pretty hefty). You get the breeders, the consumers, and everything in between. Just the Columbia and main tribs. Let walleye guys get their rocks off on Banks, Moses, and other systems not as directely effected. I like what they've been doing on the Sanpoil(as usual the colville tribe is ahead of the state by leaps and bounds), and I have killed my fair share of bass and walleye out of the trib that supports the largest run of redbands in the whole UC. We'll see what happens, though I predict our(flyfishermen) voices' being drowned out. I see the walleye turneys in these parts. They will have major support and financial backing. Maybe we should start a coalition to get our message the same respect?
And Steve...... Sorry to open old wounds. I just remember it as a major victory when we got those creek mouthes shut down. And yes, they need to close those main spawining tribs in the summer too! Some of those fish don't realize they aren't summer runs. The main biologist for the area said it's of major importance. The locals(Northport) claimed that it would hurt tourism to close those creek mouths, the outfitters the same story. They claimed the were pre-spawners, and it wasn't an issue. But as an fanatical chaser or pre-spawn fish, I've never seen staging fish drop eggs and and jizz like that. Those fish were riiiipe. As of ethics, I guess thats debatable seeing as it was legally open(Thank god and Fenton Roskelly we changed that), but I define ethics as what common sense should dictate as right and wrong, not legal definitions.I saw the pics before they were removed, and anybody that makes a living off of a very limited resource should have known better in the first place, but to defend those actions was downright disgusting. As a mini-war, yes, it was real. If you brought up the vote at that time at any watering-hole in Northport, you had better be ready to go to the parking lot, though I didn't hear about the guide getting the beat-down(no, I swear it wasn't me). I wasn't just an observer from afar either, I lived at the time(and grew up) in very nearby Evans, and was firmly in Mr. Roskelley's camp.

Click to expand...

"Spawner" Walleye are any fish age 4 and above. Thats fish right around 16" and just barely a pound up to the big girls. Many Walleye guys let the big trophy girls go and keep the smaller fish for the fry. They are letting spawners go as well as keeping spawners. I believe there is a problem and I believe there is a solution and a need for change. Your catch and kill solution is being implemented on Pike right now in Eastern Washington and all it has done is destroy the trophy fish population and leave a bunch of small stunted Pike. It doesnt work. If you're going to implement a catch and kill it needs a slot limit to encourage keep of smaller fish and release of the larger fish to keep angler interest in the species. If you stunt them out you will have less anglers fishing for them and in turn less fish being caught and removed. The larger fish, as pointed out above, are not the big bad spawners, they are just a small population of sexually mature Walleye. They are also predators on the smaller fish.

My stance is not to advocate keeping and increasing Walleye populations, it is to manage them properly before we end up with another fiasco like the Pike issue. Knee jerk reactions dont get anything done.

Thanks for leaving a comment with WDFW. On the other note: I am well aware of the situation you mention, & can tell you that there was no local mini war. The guides you mention were not robbing redds, but fishing near the creek mouths, which was legal for them at the time. They were fly fishing (from boats, in the mainstem) & releasing their catch; meanwhile bait fishing smoker fillers lined the banks killing limits. The closest thing to a 'war' I know of regarding that situation was when a guide-hating & overzealous soul attacked one of the guides at the boat ramp, & then the same guy, again, attacked the guide while he was giving a presentation at a show. And, sadly, though there is now an area closure of the mainstem at the creek mouths, those creeks are still open to fishing during the general season (during the spawn) & bait fishers are still walking out with 5-fish stringers of steelhead sized spawners. I certainly wish those who worked to get the creek mouth closures in effect would join in & help us get those creeks closed or under special regs, which, btw, that sponser guide you mention is diligently trying to do. There's always more to a story than most know.

Click to expand...

I've read where you say 5 fish limit and later where the limit is reduced to 2. Is the 5 fish limit an issue of the past? If so please cite current issues.

Also I would like to have addressed the web photos of fish dripping eggs and the photos later removed.

If there is a problem and solution I would prefer it if the facts were correct and current. Otherwise it's just another political advertisement.

I am not aware of fish dripping egg photos that were on our website and then removed. We post alot of photos as we are on the water with guided trips year round in various locations. At times the photos change daily. If there were such photos removed, they weren't removed because of this BS, I can tell you that.

Have you ever fished the American Reach of the Upper Columbia? Not one day is the same. The fish are incredibly mobile and the water fluctuates drastically. When doing a study with the WDFW one particular week - We tagged 125 fish. On one day way caught and released 5 fish in a particular zone, the next day the water had dropped so much that there was hardly any water in that zone. The point I am trying to make is that you cannot just go back to a spot and catch a fish by a particular rock on that river and expect to catch a fish the next day in that spot.

I would be happy to discuss ethics with you and Triploid Junkie anyday.... However, this is not the place. What started out as an effort to garner support for a great cause has ended up in the 'soap opera' 'name calling' factor that cyberspace allows. I certainly won't lose any sleep over it. No wonder gaining headway is difficult for a good cause.

You know it is interesting; Steve Bird and I are competitors yet friends. working together to try and better something; novel concept.

Currently 5 fish are allowed to be killed in the Creeks (General Season). These creeks are merely for reproduction in the lower reaches. These creeks should be completely off limits for catch and kill in these crucial areas.

"Spawner" Walleye are any fish age 4 and above. Thats fish right around 16" and just barely a pound up to the big girls. Many Walleye guys let the big trophy girls go and keep the smaller fish for the fry. They are letting spawners go as well as keeping spawners. I believe there is a problem and I believe there is a solution and a need for change. Your catch and kill solution is being implemented on Pike right now in Eastern Washington and all it has done is destroy the trophy fish population and leave a bunch of small stunted Pike. It doesnt work. If you're going to implement a catch and kill it needs a slot limit to encourage keep of smaller fish and release of the larger fish to keep angler interest in the species. If you stunt them out you will have less anglers fishing for them and in turn less fish being caught and removed. The larger fish, as pointed out above, are not the big bad spawners, they are just a small population of sexually mature Walleye. They are also predators on the smaller fish.

My stance is not to advocate keeping and increasing Walleye populations, it is to manage them properly before we end up with another fiasco like the Pike issue. Knee jerk reactions dont get anything done.

Click to expand...

Pike "fiasco"? The current catch & kill solution has not been in effect long enough to draw any conclusions from anybody in the field that I know of, so if you have study info that indicates otherwise I'd like to know about it. And you're right, "knee jerk" reactions don't get anything done.

Nice to know that larger walleye are not the "big bad spawners". Yet they are spawners. And big eaters. Option #4 is included in Proposition #15, not as a "knee jerk reaction" but because most of the biologists working on the problem see it as the best solution, though admittedly the hardest to implement due to push-back from perch fans. At this point, nobody can project the outcome of any of the options, so let us not jerk. If one does not prove out, we can try another. At this point, you & I are simply arguing personal opinions. And you are certainly entitled to yours. My purpose is not to twist anybody's arm regarding option #4, but rather to steer readers toward the WDFW comment box. That you let your opinion be heard there, whatever it may be, is good enough for me.

Jack, Thanks for the answers for my questions. I'm satisfied. Now to see the difference between the proposals between the Upper Columbia and the Middle or Lower Columbia. Around the tri-cities and below is a world class fishery for giant walleye. It would be a shame to waste a fishery such as that. Kettle Falls area doesn't have the same size walleye and isn't (in my opinion) the same quality of fishery.

The other Proposal is #9 and it corresponds with option 4 on Proposal #15.

I've read where you say 5 fish limit and later where the limit is reduced to 2. Is the 5 fish limit an issue of the past? If so please cite current issues.

Also I would like to have addressed the web photos of fish dripping eggs and the photos later removed.

If there is a problem and solution I would prefer it if the facts were correct and current. Otherwise it's just another political advertisement.

Click to expand...

Leech, your continually off-topic comments on this thread have led me to wonder if: you are dyslexic; you have a personal axe to grind; or you are simply a troll seeking attention; possibly all three. If it is a war of words you're after, I'd advise against it, as I'm getting the distinct impression you are attempting to play way out of your league. Though you are right about one thing: this is in fact a political advertisement. See, that's how it works in a participatory democracy, we advertise our issue & try to gain support. What is your problem with that?

SB, You may be reading more into my words that I wrote. Jack answered the questions above before you got a little steamed. I'm an eclectic fisherman, not strictly trout, and I didn't want to see a world class fishery (see Proposal #9) ruined for a trout fishery that appears to be the livelihood of a few guides. I feel the needs of many need to be considered before the wishes of a few. I am not dislexic, I do have an interest in #9 (but no axe), no war of words with a guide that may be wallet related, and I do think I'm in the correct league. This is participation in democracy.

I feel the needs of many need to be considered before the wishes of a few.

Click to expand...

Not having fished the UC or having fished for Walleye, I don't want to judge the merits of either for sportfishing. I would like to comment on a line from Zen's recent post about whose needs the state is looking out for. They have responsibility to all residents of the state in regulating our natural resources, not just those of us who like to fish or hunt. Preserving our NATIVE natural resources is a widely recognized societal "need," which, in some cases can and should trump the "needs" of a relatively small community of resource users, whichever side of the sportfishing community one may be on.

I just dont think that a walleye fishery is more important to the environment than any NATIVE population. I really dont even think it should be left in the hands voters who are at best, semi educated about the subject (myself included). The state should stop pandering to the lowest common denominator and take action to save our one of the last pure examples of OUR STATE FISH. All native species were here long before us and regardless who wants to fish for what, we need to respect nature first and foremost.

SB, You may be reading more into my words that I wrote. Jack answered the questions above before you got a little steamed. I'm an eclectic fisherman, not strictly trout, and I didn't want to see a world class fishery (see Proposal #9) ruined for a trout fishery that appears to be the livelihood of a few guides. I feel the needs of many need to be considered before the wishes of a few. I am not dislexic, I do have an interest in #9 (but no axe), no war of words with a guide that may be wallet related, and I do think I'm in the correct league. This is participation in democracy.

Tie some more flies and take a deep breath.

Click to expand...

Leech, who's talking about Proposal #9 on this post? If you want to deal with that one I suggest you start a thread regarding #9. You seem incapable of composing a comment that is not skewed off topic or that does not contain insults. This is my last reply to you. If you cannot conduct yourself as a gentleman, then I'd prefer you stay off my post.

Not having fished the UC or having fished for Walleye, I don't want to judge the merits of either for sportfishing. I would like to comment on a line from Zen's recent post about whose needs the state is looking out for. They have responsibility to all residents of the state in regulating our natural resources, not just those of us who like to fish or hunt. Preserving our NATIVE natural resources is a widely recognized societal "need," which, in some cases can and should trump the "needs" of a relatively small community of resource users, whichever side of the sportfishing community one may be on.

Dick

Click to expand...

Excellent comment. Thanks. Now I'll take that breath another poster advised me to take. In the fresh air of that clarity you succinctly provided. Somehow, through the years, WDFW has veered away from their original mission statement. Now they're expected to provide fisheries for the eclectic & those guys from Alabama & Wisconsin who want the fish they had back home.

I just dont think that a walleye fishery is more important to the environment than any NATIVE population. I really dont even think it should be left in the hands voters who are at best, semi educated about the subject (myself included). The state should stop pandering to the lowest common denominator and take action to save our one of the last pure examples of OUR STATE FISH. All native species were here long before us and regardless who wants to fish for what, we need to respect nature first and foremost.

Pike "fiasco"? The current catch & kill solution has not been in effect long enough to draw any conclusions from anybody in the field that I know of, so if you have study info that indicates otherwise I'd like to know about it. And you're right, "knee jerk" reactions don't get anything done.

Nice to know that larger walleye are not the "big bad spawners". Yet they are spawners. And big eaters. Option #4 is included in Proposition #15, not as a "knee jerk reaction" but because most of the biologists working on the problem see it as the best solution, though admittedly the hardest to implement due to push-back from perch fans. At this point, nobody can project the outcome of any of the options, so let us not jerk. If one does not prove out, we can try another. At this point, you & I are simply arguing personal opinions. And you are certainly entitled to yours. My purpose is not to twist anybody's arm regarding option #4, but rather to steer readers toward the WDFW comment box. That you let your opinion be heard there, whatever it may be, is good enough for me.

Click to expand...

I am active in the warm water community and the response I have heard from many Pike fisherman is they are no longer heading east to fish for them due to the fish they are catching being stunted. The nets took care of a lot of the larger individuals and destroyed any trophy value the fishery had. The less people fishing, the less problem fish caught. Since it has not been in effect long enough to draw any conclusions as to it's effectiveness, why is the state giving the option to implement the same solution again in another fishery? It's akin to implementing hatcheries on all the Columbia tributaries that are struggling before we knew the consequences. Now here we are trying to reverse that fiasco.

Your own quoted paper states "Specifically, walleye ages one through three appeared to be the primary culprit. Walleye in this age group were estimated to have consumed 469,991 kokanee fry, of which 100% were consumed by this age group; and 3,766 yearling kokanee, of which 54% were consumed by this age group." In other words, the young fish are the ones causing the majority of the issue. Implementing a slot limit reduces the amount of fish in this age group while still allowing recruitment to larger mature fishes and maintaining the sport fishery in the area. Attempting to catch and kill and eliminate a species is impossible. There is almost no way to remove Walleye from the system, at this point you have to coexist with them by proper management. I'd like to see a study done where option #4 has been successfully implemented. It was a knee jerk reaction implemented on the Pike and the only success I have heard of has been the destruction of a sport fishery and stunting of the population. I'm not here to sway anybody either way either, I'm just supplying facts and ideas from the opposition. I'd prefer to have commenters that are informed from both sides writing their comment. Not only will they learn or understand better, but their comment may include important points for their choice as opposed to a plain "I support #4".

Jack, Thanks for the answers for my questions. I'm satisfied. Now to see the difference between the proposals between the Upper Columbia and the Middle or Lower Columbia. Around the tri-cities and below is a world class fishery for giant walleye. It would be a shame to waste a fishery such as that. Kettle Falls area doesn't have the same size walleye and isn't (in my opinion) the same quality of fishery.

The other Proposal is #9 and it corresponds with option 4 on Proposal #15.

Click to expand...

I havent fishes above Grand Coulee, But I know the area below pumps out fish 15+lbs every year. It is turning into the world class fishery the tri cities area has become.